Hi John,
Did you know that IBM has successfully taken pictures of the inside of molecules? They even built some triangles no thicker that a strand of intact DNA is wide. Carbon nanotubes are involved in the process, as well as fragments of DNA. This stuff can be scary when you think about it.
-Chris
I guess it applies to how and how much you apply philosophy to physics. To be honest with you, you can get by just fine without considering philosophy at all. Maybe it helps when you are designing on the hairy edge of physics?
Engineering is physics applied. Speaking of engineering, ...
Did you know that IBM has successfully taken pictures of the inside of molecules? They even built some triangles no thicker that a strand of intact DNA is wide. Carbon nanotubes are involved in the process, as well as fragments of DNA. This stuff can be scary when you think about it.
-Chris
Chris, I agree with you that Joshua is being mildly disruptive, but who isn't on this thread? I just want to make the point that Joshua is not completely out of place uniting physics and philosophy. In fact, I suspect that is why audio design is so challenging. If we could measure all audio differences with the test equipment at hand, and get 100% results, we would do so. It just doesn't work that way.
Preaching to the converted here. They're tied together particularly in that people like Schroedinger and Heisenberg and Einstein had philosophical inclinations. Feynman though appeared not to have such interests, even asserting that the usefulness of philosophy of science to a scientist was akin to ornithology's usefulness to a bird. Tied together though doesn't make them the same thing - the 'shut up and calculate' mentality (sometimes, seemingly wrongly, attributed to Feynman) is apparently alive and well in the practice of physics.
Suggest adding to your growing list:
'What's wrong with physics' Lee Smolin
Philosophy and audio
What makes audio so much more interesting than mere physics (for me at least) is that it always involves the listener. This is quite unlike the present state of physics which still tends to be almost exclusively concerned with 'objectivity', by definition. Joshua is indeed right to bring philosophy into audio because, when applied correctly, it neatly resolves the old objectivist/subjectivist dichotomy.
What makes audio so much more interesting than mere physics (for me at least) is that it always involves the listener. This is quite unlike the present state of physics which still tends to be almost exclusively concerned with 'objectivity', by definition. Joshua is indeed right to bring philosophy into audio because, when applied correctly, it neatly resolves the old objectivist/subjectivist dichotomy.
This is only in your imagination, since I never made such a claim.
I agree that there is no perfection, in anything, not only speakers. I never said otherwise.
This for you to prove, or to give evidence to.
Also, what makes speakers different from amps in this respect?
Now, suppose it's true. In such a case, no one with intellectual integrity will comment anything about any speakers one never either heard or saw the results of the measurements you are referring to. This isn't about my speakers, it's about all speakers.
I have no idea what you refer to as norm.
I'm not choosing audio gear by the criteria that it's being liked by the masses. The masses are satisfied with audio gear that costs very much less than mine.
Who spoke about voicing without measurements?
Indeed, however each speaker model has unique characteristics that are noted in most environments.
Not really. You take general statements of mine and wrongly interpret them as an attempt to defend my choice of speakers. You twist my words and meaning to high degree.
This applies to all speakers, not to mine in particular.
I'm only arguing your wrong interpretations of my words.
Why are listening tests necessary when, according to your claim, "measurements on loudspeakers agrees closely with what listening panels will say"?
Please make up your mind. Either measurements are enough to tell the sound quality of speakers, or they are not.
Your conviction is good or you.
Thank you.
Right now I'm satisfied with my present setup.
Also, it's impossible to do it with my speakers, since they have both electronic crossover and acoustic crossover.
Moreover, I heard speakers with electronic crossover. None of those I heard sounded as natural as my speakers. So, my experience shows me that electronic crossover isn't the ultimate solution for best sound.
When physics acknowledge that the observer has influence on quantum levels phenomena, ignoring looking into who or what the observer is – it's odd. Physics by itself has no answer to who or what the observer is. Modern physics cannot avoid philosophical (or metaphysical) issues. Metaphysical, mind you, is that which is beyond physics, not necessarily ghosts or demons.
To my view, audio doesn't solve that dichotomy. It only demonstrates that both the objective and subjective are necessary, we cannot go along successfully with just one of the two.
Of course you can hear in three dimensions with two speakers just as you can see 3D with two 2D pictures, the process is called brain power.
Maybe while the audiofools train their listening abilities, the measurementfreaks study their language.
Exactly. Use the brain to fill in the missing information. A fooling process called illusion.
Nothing but a brain has the capacity, starting with two speakers, of rebuilding the sonic image of a source 20 foot above the ground (to count for what is regularly called "3D")
BTW, a picture is not a punctual source. It already contains 2D information. The purpose of the second picture is to add the third piece of information, which can be either phase (as in holography) or a differential (3D cinema).
You can train your brain as much as you can train yourself magician tricks. Being able to perform such tricks doesn't make them anywhere more real.
Last edited:
Only if you have little to no understanding of basic physics.
I'm amazed that people who couldn't solve a Schroedinger equation for the hydrogen atom or derive the Johnson noise equation from first principles nonetheless spout amazingly gassy and content-free philosophy with an air of arrogant certainty.
Johnson did all the work.
This derivation is truly one of the most beautiful results in physics.
You are deeply subjective, and didn't mention "one of" and "to me".
"To me", "one of" the most beautiful results in physics are Noether's theorems. And "to me" Nyquist derivation is ugly as sin
.There.
Yep, quite agree.
Modern physics most certainly does avoid those issues which is one of the reasons its in such a parlous state (just read Smolin).
I am sure you are fully qualified to issue such a bold statement, aren't you?
What missing information, the more accurate you can reproduce the original sound, the more usable information there is for the brain to reconstruct the event.
20 foot!!! I would love to see that instrument.
I guess 3D in audio refer to width, height and depth of the placement of instruments on the stage
Nobody said they are real but they can sound very realistic.
You are deeply subjective, and didn't mention "one of" and "to me".
And "to me" Nyquist derivation is ugly as sin
"Da konnt' mir halt dich leid tun."
Philosophizing on audio
I take it you mean philosophy rather than audio?
One of my favourite quotes in the realm of physics is from one of the founders of QM, Erwin Schroedinger. Its worth repeating here:
The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.
I take it you mean philosophy rather than audio?
One of my favourite quotes in the realm of physics is from one of the founders of QM, Erwin Schroedinger. Its worth repeating here:
The world is given to me only once, not one existing and one perceived. Subject and object are only one. The barrier between them cannot be said to have broken down as a result of recent experience in the physical sciences, for this barrier does not exist.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.